Messages

There is a cave outside of this area, complete with an underground lake. Bruce has stored his arsenal away from the elements. So we have the best of both worlds.

That sounds more like half of the best of one world for me personally. It could be stored away and not look like a patio.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Batcave concept art:




It sure beats a basic platform and computer in a bare cave, ala TDK Rises.

Honestly, I've preferred the batcave to be more of a cave, so Burton/Shumacher and Nolan batcaves for the win in this area. This just kinda looks like the batpatio.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I'm actually surprised that there are people who don't buy Batman's paranoid stance here because when MOS came out, there were a lot of knee-jerk reactions about "how Superman was responsible for destroying Metropolis or letting the city get destroyed". In reality, it was Zod who was destroying Metropolis, while Superman was directly responsible for starting the fight in Smallville.

If anything, I would've thought those people would've empathized with Batman. As far as the general audience is concerned, we're only guessing. We don't what the reaction will be until the film is out.

I side with Batman here, only mainly because Superman seems so arrogant in a different sense than Batman may. I don't blame Superman for the destruction of Metropolis. I blame the director and writer for making it like it is. Superman wasn't exactly in control of the situation. Something I blame his character for is his apathy at the destruction and loss life. The city is destroyed, people are crushed under rubble and surrounding him covered in ash and Superman makes out with Lois, that along with cutting from Clark yelling in pain about killing Zod to him smiling and being fully fine. For the record, I think Batman, otherwise would be kinda silly to go and hunt down Superman because he might be a bad guy at some point in the future (if that's what's happening).

Once again, we will have to agree to disagree about this, but the second trailer shows Superman doesn't approve Batman and doesn't seem to think he's much better than the crooks. As Clark interviewed Bruce, he even calls Gotham's tolerance of Batman's actions as "trampling on civil liberties". I won't guarantee that this tension will be resolved satisfactorily, but I think the marketing conveys the message enough.

I can't say I like that. Where does Superman get off saying that Batman is doing something illegal and going after him (if that's what's happening, because the trailer kinda paints it that way)? He has no right to say or do that.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I was just thinking about this the other day when me and my little brother watched Heart Of Ice. I always liked that scene. Arnold does really well in that scene. The Lord works in mysterious ways, huh?

God bless you all! God bless everyone!

(As for the thread's subject, don't know, but this article was an enjoyable read. Overall I enjoy what Mendelson writes about movies).

That's kinda neat. While we're at it...


God bless you! God bless everyone!

I think the hype is justified. It's basically everything we've wanted for Batman.

And check these out:

http://imgur.com/a/XAbf0/layout/grid#8

We've? That seems like a large statement. I know I've always gotten what I wanted for the Batman character.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I haven't seen any of your posts on this movie, but are you trying to not like this movie? The trailer was awesome, and it seems you're trying to convince yourself the movie wont be good.

That seems like a bit of a stretch and also it's an opinion that the trailer was awesome. I liked it quite a bit, but if I watched a Batman movie to see him punch things, I'd play the Arkham games. Same with Superman. Fighting isn't really what I'm interested with in these superheroes. I thought him running into the collapsing rubble of Metropolis was far more awesome than any fighting. Being uncertain about a film's quality isn't bad thing.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Thanks for the laugh. I literally choked on my water reading that.

You can't freaking be serious. They do, militantly so, and it's far more than "some."

It's true.

Try to propose to a Nolanite that Jack Nicholson's Joker was superior or even on par with Heath Ledger's and it's like someone rattled a chimp's cage and got it pissed. They go bloody freaking bonkers.

Which by the way, Jack was superior. Heath had a great performance, but that wasn't the Joker. It was a grungy anarchist with bad hygiene. I went to school with plenty of would-be Heath Jokers.

I don't know why it bothers you so much. But there are many interpretations of characters. It's not a big deal. They're both viable. I don't see the majority doing that, I'm sorry. But it sounds like both sides aren't really innocent of this.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

That's interesting because I thought DOFP was the first time Bryan Singer made a comic-book movie I felt came close to capturing the tone and sense of character of its source material.  X-Men and X2, I found to be rather dreary affairs, at least from a visual perspective, and felt to be rather small-scale and lacking in a sense of the epic.  Plus, I didn't care for the way the series started with Wolverine, Storm and Rogue as opposed to the original School of Gifted Mutants team consisting of Cyclops, Jean Grey, Ice-Man, and the, in this case absent, Beast and Angel, and the countless number of subsequent retcons and total disregard for continuity that was arguably necessitated by the creative decisions made on the first few X-Men films.

DOFP was a rehash of the basic plot beats of X2 really. I found the whole movie kinda drab. It lacked the exposure in it's background characters that the others had. And the lack of colorful characters in general did the movie no real favors for me, beyond Quicksilver, who really is used once. It's entire plot centered around a fully childish character, the plot devices made no sense, the plot of the first half of the movie was basically recycled for the second half and it reuses Magneto as a villain again instead of giving us anything new. I was personally frustrated that Master Mold wasn't in it and instead the controllers of the sentinels were evil businessmen. And the only characters who really evolve are Charles and Raven.

As for Superman Returns, I felt that was, for the most part, a visual treat but that it lacked in a purpose (the film was basically a follow-up to and a remake of Superman The Movie, and basically amounted to a single question 'what if Superman had a kid?'), failed to do anything new or interesting with the characters, and worse was woefully miscast in places (Kate Bosworth was far too young and wan for Lois Lane, and Kevin Spacey should have been a slam-dunk for Lex but sadly chose to play the character as a retread of the winking comic-shyster Hackman had already given us with the Donner movies, not to mention, Brandon Routh was shackled in the main part by having to do an imitation of the peerless Christopher Reeve, rather than liberated to do something new with Superman, as Henry Cavill has thankfully been permitted).

I don't see that as the case really at all. Superman Returns was very much about Clark's lonliness and his inability to connect with humans, about he can live in the world, but never truly be connected to the humans. His son grants him that connection and the realization that he has in the movie that with a son, he's not alone anymore. Kate Bosworth is an actress. She may have been young, but the character wasn't. I don't see the problem. Michael Keaton wasn't really a physical dynamo and Brandon Routh, Henry Cavill and Christopher Reeve can't really fly. I highly doubt Ben Affleck is really capable of all that he's doing in the recent BvS trailer either. And Kevin Spacey's Lex was actually quite different as a character. He was much more serious, angry and jealous than Gene Hackman's Lex, who was more happy go lucky as a villain. I'm afraid no Superman will ever be able to do something new. It's all been done. At the moment I see Henry Cavill's as more like the Superman animated series. But I don't see a problem with being geeky. It's really as close as Superman having glasses being a disguise is going to get to being acceptable.

Also, I don't understand the negativity towards Marvel, and the stigma towards so-called 'Marvel fanboys' since the MCU is finally and thankfully putting the fun and colour back into comic-book movies after a decade or so of dreary, colourless and 'gritty' CBMs no doubt attempting to escape Batman & Robin's shadow by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and in getting rid of the camp and silliness, also taking away the fun and exhilaration a great comic-book movie should ideally deliver.

Fun and color have been in many superhero movies between B&R the TDKT. The Raimi SM films, the FF films and the first Ghost Rider had it. DD in 2003 had fun in it, though admittedly not much color. The same with X3. You could say they made it more popular though.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

keep in mind that trailers can be far different than the films themselves and there have been bad films with good trailers. For instance the Dark Knight rises trailer implied Batman would be the main character in the film but as we saw that wasn't the case.

Yes, he was.

On the subject of Affleck vs. Keaton. Let's not act like the Nolanites here and pretend that our favourite version is immortal and nothing can never touch it. If Affleck ends up better, hats off to him. Keatons version stood the test of time and will always have it's place but there's certainly room for improvement.

Nolan fans don't necessarily do that. Some do it's likely, but not all.

God bless you! God bless everyone!